Garbage in - Garbage out?

Maybe it was because of Ivor but in UK the emphasis was always on the front-end. When I lived there I used to read about the US penchant for big amps and wonderous speakers.

Now I'm in the US I've got the amps and speakers (albeit B&Ws !).

But I do think things have changed with digital sources being the norm and that bits are bits, to overly generalize. Analog sources are still hard to reproduce though.

And another over generalization. Technology hasn't changed much in speakers or amplifiers while manufacturers and content providers are always trying to change source formats. Mono vinyl to stereo vinyl to Cd to multi-track CD to ? So it may be worth the 'risk' to plow disproportionately (that's a long word!) more of your money into things that you're less likely to change out, like amplifiers and speakers and cables and power supplies, than would logically be the case in the pursuit of the best sound for the buck.

Just my 2c, or so.

IMO it's all important ... and thus funds should be relatively equally split between source, amp and speakers. I'm a Brit, but I remember the "source first" argument was started by Linn, who at the time were manufacturing .... let's see .... turntables ... what a great coincidence !

Unfortunately this means that achieving a significant upgrade is hugely expensive. So I usually forget about upgrading and go and buy some more CDs and LPs.

>>said above by PBB: The fault with the source theory, which harks back to Ivor the Invincible, is that not each link in the chain is equal.

>>said above by Rlwainwright: Having worked in high-end audio for several years, I absolutely concur with Rel - the transformation of mechanical energy to electrical (cartridges) and back again (speakers) are the areas most subject to the introduction of distortion and spurious noise.

IMHO, these are some of the more intelligent things I’ve read here on the subject and when PBB and Albert Porter agree on an issue it’s enough to get my attention! (hehehehe)

The components in the chain do not have the same function from a tech point of view. They are doing completely different things and each technology is at a different state of development. You can’t even approach the subject or say something meaningful from a “front-end” / “back-end” analysis.

Inevitably a discussion that starts with terms as general as “front end” will end with the all encompassing and powerful audio answer: “synergy”. I have started to gag on the word. It generally stops the discussion just where it gets interesting. This started with me about a decade ago in office meetings. Some doe-eyed up-and-comer would say something like “we should combine these departments because the combination has a real fundamental “synergy.” I learned to take it to mean that he/she didn’t know enough to say anything in particular or he/she was smart enough not to say anything that could be pinned down. A smart move!! A real candidate for the board of directors! I think I remember the brokers describing the AOL Time Warner merger as a real “synergy thing.” It's like a magic incantation.

In any event, I've chosen to use the word "Robust." I always liked Juan Valdez and his robust beans and I think it is time to move on from “Synergistic” front-ends to “Robust” back-ends. Just can’t stop progress.

Sincerely
I remain,

There is no doubt that speakers are an exceedingly important part of the equation. However, I would disagree as to the "digital is digital" argument. I've heard numerous instances where a much better source (e.g., a CD player with great power supply, etc.) has made a world of difference in the sound of the system. Very good speakers can only reflect what is being put through them and they will not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. However, it is axiomatic that good electronics feeding good speakers will produce a better sound. So, in essence, the "garbage in, garbage out" theory has some validity.

When we tested and set up turntables in the Toronto shop I worked in, back in 1974, it was always easy to tell the difference between units--even through the 6-watt ss amp and minispeakers with the woven raffia grilles which we used to listen with. We mostly did Garrards, Connoisseur BD2s and some ERAs although we never refused even a BSR, but when an Ariston came in everyone could hear how good it was compared with the rest. This was before any of us had heard an LP12.

Perhaps this experience is no longer valid in the digital age, but when I've been asked what to buy now by someone whose dreams were bigger than his wallet, I've always said to get the best source you can now, and upgrade your downstream stuff later on. You will have more pleasure over the long term, because you will spend more time with your system than you would if you bought a cheaper source and better speakers to hear it through.

Perhaps different contexts--digital, or a system which is already well into the high end, or greater knowledge and experience--may make this advice inappropriate. But when the format wars are won, many of us will need a source upgrade. Would anyone care to say now that SACD will be what we all buy ?